Doug Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of H. Res. 57. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, His Excellency Kunihko Saito, the Honorable Ambassador of Japan, is returning soon to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tokyo upon completion of his assignment here. Prior to his departure, this Member wishes to recognize Ambassador Saito's extraordinary contributions to strengthening the friendship and alliance between the United States and Japan. It is frequently remarked that there is no more important relationship in the world today than the relationship between the United States and Japan. Today, this relationship is stronger than ever and one of the reasons for that fact is the efforts of Ambassador Saito. During the three and a half years, he so ably represented his nation here, Ambassador Saito helped our two countries navigate a series of milestones that updated the terms of our security relationship for the post-cold war era through the new U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines and our agreement to cooperate on research on ballistic missile defense because of the threats from North Korea. Moreover, Japan's contribution as host nation support for our armed forces stationed there remains the highest in the world. We also have deepened our cooperation through the Common Agenda, including efforts to fight disease, control narcotics, protect endangered species, and preserve the environment. And while trade frictions will always exist even among the closest of friends, Ambassador Saito has made important contributions to bilateral negotiations aimed at opening Japan further to U.S. products through deregulation and to facilitating the kind of foreign direct investment to Japan that supports our exports. As Chairman of the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, this Member extends to Ambassador Saito and to the friendly, gracious and diplomatically astute Mrs. Saito, the recognition and appreciation of the United States Congress for an important job extremely well done. We wish these two good Japanese friends continued success in all future endeavors and hope for future contact.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support, of course, of H. Res. 297, a resolution addressing the devastating earthquake that occurred last week in Taiwan and literally decimated major parts of the island. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It has become an all too familiar sight: many thousands of casualties, an unknown number missing, hundreds of thousands of homeless, buildings collapsed, roads destroyed, village-destroying mud slides, dams cracked and in danger of failing. The people of Taiwan will no doubt persevere. They are strong and they are courageous. They have faced adversity before. But it is only appropriate that this body comment on this tragic natural catastrophe and pledge our concern and empathy and assistance. This does extend the sympathy of the House of Representatives and the American people to the people of Taiwan. It notes with approval the assistance being provided under the auspices of the Agency for International Development. Within a few hours of the earthquake, U.S. rescue teams from Fairfax County, Virginia, and Miami, Florida, for example--I am sure there are many others--were en route to provide assistance. I noticed last night the people returning to Dulles Airport met by families and friends, and the Taiwanese-American community was out there to greet them at Dulles, thanking them for their special assistance. These teams have had dogs trained to discover those trapped in buildings that had collapsed and these teams quickly attacked the rubble. Such assistance, I think, sends an important message of moral support for people in the midst of suffering and the executive branch should be commended for their prompt action. The resolution also notes with approval the willingness of other countries to come to the assistance of Taiwan in its time of need. Japan, Singapore, the People's Republic of China, and I want to emphasize Turkey, which recently also experienced its own very similar catastrophe. Even if such aid is modest, and I hope it will be more than modest, it tells the people of Taiwan that they are not alone. Mr. Speaker, this is a genuinely bipartisan expression of concern. This Member is joined in cosponsoring, for example, by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York; the ranking Democrat, the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut; and the distinguished ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific who helped with the crafting and moving of this legislation, the gentleman from California. The list of cosponsors, of course, goes on, and every one, I think, of our colleagues if they knew about the movement of this legislation would like to be there as a cosponsor. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting to hear the comments that have taken place here on the floor in this resolution. Let me assure my colleagues who are listening, who are watching, that the anxieties of the gentleman from Texas are not well taken. This resolution has been carefully drafted. This is a gentleman who is concerned about the promiscuous use of our military forces on peace enforcement, peacekeeping activities around the country. As I will try to show point by point, the concerns of the gentleman have been taken into account. And, in fact, what we are doing here has been very carefully crafted and is appropriate as a military and foreign policy response to the crisis in East Timor. I want to thank first of all the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the distinguished Democratic ranking minority member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for their support of this legislation. But in particular I wish to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). By the way, I might say in general that he and I and indeed his predecessor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), his ranking member, have worked on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific in a very careful bipartisan fashion and the interaction between our staff I think has been appropriate on foreign policy matters. I do think, of course, we will find times when we disagree even on foreign policy issues, but we have worked carefully together to preserve whenever possible a bipartisan consensus. We have it in this legislation, and I thank him for his effort. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) in particular for their direct assistance in drafting this resolution. I might say regarding the distinguished chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), his concern was that we not just focus on the immediate but we take a look at the long-term requirements and concerns that we ought to have in a foreign policy sense towards Indonesia and East Timor; and we have attempted to reflect that fact as well. Now, there were some things where I certainly disagree on a matter of historical perspective with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). The story of East Timor is comprised of chapter after chapter of suffering and tragedy. After 450 years of neglect, Portugal abandoned this impoverished, disease-ridden colony in 1975 without providing any preparations for future self-governance. If we look back in that period of time, of course, Portugal had extreme political, domestic problems and they abandoned all of their colonies in Africa and in the Pacific overnight. Of all of the colonies, East Timor was the most impoverished. In fact, it is said there was not a single college-educated person in that Portuguese colony to take on the responsibilities of self-governance. In contrast to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has said, the United States never recognized the sovereignty of Indonesia over East Timor. We never took that step. They can criticize American foreign policy, even Republican and Democratic administrations, for some of our relationships with Indonesia, even as they relate to East Timor. But I want to make it clear that we never recognized that sovereignty when the Portuguese pulled out. As we visited with Commissioner Chris Patten of the European Union last week, we talked about the European Union's responsibilities; but we also talked about the statements that Portugal has made about their responsibility and willingness to help finance the first few years of operation, I think five was mentioned, of an independent East Timor. I believe because of the rejection of the autonomy provision before the Timorese people, it is clear that East Timor is moving towards independence. That may be difficult. We hope that it is not. The international community needs to be there and support them in that effort. And part of that requirement is addressed by this resolution. It is clear that it is going to be very difficult for the Timorese on that end of the island to maintain an independent state. So it is going to need a lot of assistance from the world community in general. Well, as a result of what happened then, East Timor erupted into a very bloody civil war in which all factions were vying for power and they engaged in human rights abuses against their own kinsmen. Famine soon followed. Indonesia invaded the territory in 1975, annexed East Timor in 1976, proclaiming it as Indonesia's 27th province. This annexation, as I said, was never recognized by the United Nations or the United States. While Indonesia devoted significant infrastructure and desperately needed development resources to East Timor, Jakarta ruled the territory with an iron fist, as vividly exemplified by the massacre of peaceful East Timorese demonstrators in Dili in 1991. Indeed, Indonesia's repressive actions in East Timor have been a festering sore in U.S.-Indonesian bilateral relations. It has been the largest complicating factor in our relationship with this, the world's fourth most populous, country. After years of Indonesian intransigence, President Habibie took the bold step towards resolving the long-standing problem of East Timor. And he did it, I think it is fair to say, over the opposition of the Indonesian military. But last January, he seemingly brushed aside the reservations of the military, which considered East Timor its special domain, and surprised the world by offering the people of East Timor an opportunity to determine their own future through the ballot box and under U.N. auspices. There was, perhaps, at that time a general sense of guarded optimism prompted by the reassurances of President Habibie and Armed Forces Chief General Wiranto that Jakarta would live up to its promises to maintain order and create an environment conducive for a safe and fair election. But that proved not to be a realistic assessment, as we all know. Despite increased violence and intimidation by Indonesian military- supported militia, however, on August 30 of this year, a record 98.6 percent of the registered East Timorese voters went to the polls with 78 percent of them choosing in effect by rejecting the autonomy provision choosing independence. The will of the people of East Timor is clear and overwhelming. It is evident by the horrific events in East Timor which followed this vote that the Indonesian Government, and particularly the Indonesian military, was deliberately unwilling or perhaps in some cases unable to uphold their responsibilities to provide peace and security. Indonesia demanded this responsibility and the international community, through the United Nations, entrusted Indonesia with it. Instead, elements of the Indonesian military were directly responsible for the destruction, the mayhem, the murder that enveloped East Timor. Indonesia should be aware that its abject failure to live up to its promises and its complicity in that destruction of East Timor, especially the capital, Dili, will likely have long-term and far-reaching negative consequences. On September 12, 1999, under pressure especially from this country, from our administration and from the Congress, and also from the Secretary General, President Habibie reluctantly announced that Indonesia would allow a United Nations Security Council-endorsed multilateral force into East Timor. The first contingent of that force, led by Australia and involving 10 or more countries, which are specifically mentioned in this resolution, began to arrive in a limited number on September 20. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has already talked about the major contributions that the Australians have made, their willingness to step forward. This is the kind of regional initiative by our allies that we have been encouraging around the world that we would like to see take place in Africa, that we would have liked to have seen take place in Europe. The Australians stepped forward, as they have so many times, always by our side for 80 years, the most loyal of all the allies. They were the neighboring country. They had the military force. They felt a sense of responsibility, and they stepped forward. Our resolution does not suggest we are going to have a massive effort to involve our military forces there. We have 200, most of whom are in Darwin, Australia, not in East Timor itself. We specifically mention in section 13(a) that we express approval of the United States logistical and other technical support for the multinational force in East Timor. We do not talk about combat troops. We are very specific in what we are suggesting there. And in 13(b) we specifically address the issue of the War Powers Act. We preserve the prerogatives of the Congress under the Constitution, a matter that is protested by the executive branch and Congress, but we do nothing to set aside our prerogatives that we think we maintain in this House of Representatives. So the concerns of the gentleman expressed here earlier about some grant of power are just not here, and I encourage him to look again at section 13. I also want to say that I think this legislation is one that my colleagues should endorse. It is an appropriate step in foreign policy and defense. I urge support of the resolution. House Resolution 292 supports the referendum that occurred in East Timor and our acceptance of the results. Among its other provisions, it expresses concern about Indonesia's failure to provide safety and security to the people of East Timor and condemns the militias and the elements of the Indonesian military that have engaged in violence. It urges the international community to investigate the human rights abuses that have occurred and calls on Indonesia to hold accountable those responsible for such acts. The Resolution urges the unrestricted access to and safe return of refugees and displaced persons in West Timor and elsewhere. It supports the consideration of additional economic and other sanctions against Indonesia should Indonesia not cooperate with or hinder the multinational force, the civilian UNAMET, the safe return of refugees or the transition to independence for East Timor. This measure also supports the limited U.S. logistical and other technical support for the multinational force for East Timor. And, it strongly commends Australia and the other multinational force contributors for their willingness to rapidly deploy this rescue force for East Timor. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 292 also recognizes that an effective United States foreign policy for the region requires both a near-term response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in, and progress toward independence for, East Timor and a long-term strategy for supporting stability, security and democracy in Indonesia. This Member stresses to his colleagues that while CNN and many of us in this Chamber have focused on the crisis affecting 800,000 people on East Timor, we must not lose sight of the more important relationship we need to rebuild and maintain with 209 million other Indonesians. Previous congressional actions which were focused on East Timor have largely been counterproductive and have resulted in us losing overall access and leverage in Indonesia, particularly with the Indonesian military as evidenced by our limited ability influence and temper its role in East Timor. Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution, however, is a responsible, balanced statement. It certainly condemns those Indonesian actions that warrant condemnation. It supports the will of the East Timorese people and the multinational force being deployed in East Timor. It also helps provide direction for a more peaceful and cooperative future for both Indonesia and East Timor. Therefore, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to support House Resolution 292.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2942. I would also note my cosponsorship of this legislation and legislation introduced by several Members, including the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), which would either extend or make permanent these Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania for expediting it, as well as the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. I appreciate the supportive comments of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. Chapter 12 bankruptcy has been a necessary and responsible and viable option for family farmers nationwide. It has allowed family farmers to reorganize their assets in a manner which balances the interests of the creditors and the future success of the involved farmer. If Chapter 12 bankruptcy provisions are not extended for family farmers, it will have a drastic effect on the agricultural sector, already reeling from low commodity prices. Not only will many family farmers have to end their operations, but also land values will plunge downward. Such a decrease in land values will affect both the ability of the family farmer to earn a living and the manner in which banks making agricultural loans conduct their lending activities. This gentleman represents a premier agriculture district, and, as a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I am concerned about those agricultural loans out there and their customers. This is a very important piece of legislation. Like my colleagues, like the words expressed by the gentleman from Michigan, I would very much like to see this permanently extended. But the House passed this earlier, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania indicated, by actually 313 to 108, with my support. Unfortunately, the other body failed to act on the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Therefore, a 3 month extension is absolutely necessary for our family farmers and other small agri-business families. Mr. Speaker, in closing I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2942, which provides a 3 month extension.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H. Res. 168, a resolution honoring the United States Foreign Service on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. The significance of the contribution of the Foreign Service to the security and well-being of the United States cannot be overstated. Foreign Service Officers are literally on the front line of the struggle to protect our country's values, ideals, prosperity, and security. Scores of American diplomats have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country as was tragically demonstrated most recently in the terrible toll taken by the terrorist bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. American diplomats today are every bit as vulnerable as members of the Armed Forces, and they are far more vulnerable to directed acts of terrorism. They deserve all the protection we can possibly provide. In this context, this Member has been disturbed by the Administration's rather tepid response to the Crowe Commission report on embassy security. The Crowe Commission, this Member will remind his colleagues, called for $1.4 billion in embassy security assistance each year for 10 years. Clearly, the United States has been remiss for many years in not taking stronger action to protect its diplomats and facilities abroad from terrorist attack. This body must do everything possible to rectify this problem as soon as possible, and adhering to the Crowe Commission guidelines is an important first step. Madam Speaker, this Member would like to offer my warm congratulations to each and every Foreign Service Officer. This Member would note that the Pearson Fellowship program, which provides outstanding young Foreign Service Officers will temporary assignment to the legislative branch, has been a particularly effective tool to help this body better understand U.S. foreign policy. Madam Speaker, this Member urges strong support for H. Res. 168.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today is the result of a truly bipartisan effort to address the range of critical housing needs of our seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income families. The proposal not only contains many original provisions from H.R. 202, a bill introduced this year by the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), but also brings the facets of H.R. 1336, the Emergency Residents Protection Act, introduced by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) on March 25. Also contained within the bill are ideas from H.R. 1624, the Elderly Housing Quality Improvement Act, and provisions of H.R. 425, the Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act, introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), and also the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). The bills have been the subject of three committee hearings during the 106th Congress. Majority and minority committee staff have worked along with HUD staff for the last several months to develop a bipartisan consensus product supported by the committee's Republican and Democratic leadership. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services reported out the bill last Friday by a unanimous vote. As Members can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill encompasses a broad spectrum of ideas, and they are all the right ideas to help America's seniors and other vulnerable citizens find affordable housing. Let me take a moment to explain why I feel this is such an important legislative matter. On the horizon, a gray dawn is approaching where more and more Americans will live longer and enjoy more active healthy lives. More than 33 million people in the United States are now 65 years of age or older, and by the year 2020 that number will grow to almost 53 million Americans. That is one in every six Americans. This new-found longevity should be celebrated, but we must also not take our future quality of life for granted. In this environment of an aging population, we must not overlook the fact that millions of senior citizens will suffer a crisis of safe, affordable housing if we fail to prepare for it. Even today, the U.S. General Accounting Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have determined that at least 1.4 million senior citizens are already experiencing worst-case housing needs. Seniors are more likely than any other adults to be poor, and nearly 40 percent of seniors not in nursing homes are limited by chronic conditions, unable to perform the simplest activities associated with independent living. These senior citizens who helped create the foundations for the greatness of our country today deserve to know that they will be taken care of. This bill should provide that peace of mind. The provisions in this bill are designed to protect our seniors, the disabled, and our vulnerable families from displacement of drastic rent increases, and offers greater program flexibility to broaden the scope of these important programs. Specifically, the bill accomplishes that through a number of provisions. First, it provides HUD with the authority to convert the subsidy financing of section 202 senior housing projects built from section 8 prior to 1990 to the 5-year project rental assistance contracts, PRAC, that have been offered to projects since 1990. This allows nonprofit senior housing providers and HUD to streamline the administration of the program. Operated outside of the section 8 regulatory regime, providers are provided relief from often complex and burdensome rules. More importantly, the extraordinary level of stress and anxiety senior citizens often feel under section 8 programs are removed. Secondly, it reauthorizes the section 202 program, which is the primary method of Federal finance for low-income senior citizens. We authorize supportive housing for elderly persons and for persons with disabilities and provide grants for service coordinators for elderly and disabled projects. Third, it expands housing opportunities for seniors and individuals with disabilities, and it contains many common sense provisions to increase program flexibility. Fourth, this bill protects seniors, the disabled, and vulnerable families from being displaced from their housing because of section 8 opt-outs. The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held hearings earlier this year on the problem of expiring section 8 contracts and found that a significant number of owners that were indicating they planned to opt out of section 8 programs. Five hundred units are at risk over the next 5 years of being lost as affordable housing if we do not act. Finally, it would make amendments to the existing Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program, allowing seniors to maximize the equity in their homes by streamlining the process of refinancing reverse mortgages. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for their leadership on this issue and thank many members of the committee, the leadership on the minority side, as well as HUD for working with us in such a bipartisan manner to solve these problems. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 202) to restructure the financing for assisted housing for senior citizens and otherwise provide for the preservation of such housing in the 21st Century, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), for yielding me this time. I want to particularly commend the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for successfully offering a specific amendment that expands an existing study in H.R. 202 regarding the number of section 811 projects for disabled housing to also include the per-unit cost of section 202 projects for senior citizens. This amendment was passed en bloc with the manager's amendment in the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and then in the full committee. Due to the efforts of the gentlewoman from Illinois, this Member and others, by unanimous consent a second-tree amendment to the manager's amendment was accepted by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The second-degree amendment provides for the insertion of an additional consideration to the above-mentioned study of section 202 and section 811 housing. This provision requires that the section 202 study examine social considerations afforded by smaller and moderate- sized developments and not be limited to the examination of solely economic factors. The intent behind this provision is a recognition of the probability that if only per-unit cost factors were examined in this H.R. 202 study, then the economies of scale would dictate a construction bias toward large, high-rise section 202 or section 811 complexes as compared to small and moderate-sized developments in both urban and nonmetropolitan areas. However, this Member believes that bigger is not always better in such housing developments. In many cases, it can be shown that housing developments which are not very big in size may better meet the living environment desires and the social concerns of its residents and also provides for a more advantageous integration of the development and the residents into the immediate neighborhood. Moreover, the second-degree amendment also increases the availability of developable sites for section 202 and section 811 projects. Finally, among other important considerations, smaller and moderate-sized section 202 and section 811 projects which are certainly needed in smaller and medium-sized communities are more likely to be approved if the cost per unit criterion is not the overwhelming consideration. In closing, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois and all of those on both sides of the aisle that supported her and this Member and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation generally. It is excellent legislation.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, many of us were hoping that progress could be made on a United States-China agreement for China's accession to the World Trade Organization [WTO] at the recent mini-summit meeting between President Clinton and Chinese President Jiang in Auckland, New Zealand. With the new WTO round beginning in Seattle, Washington, at the end of November, the time left to reach an agreement, and for China to join the WTO at the Seattle ministerial meeting, has almost run out. China needs to be in the WTO. And, China's accession to the WTO is in the short and long term interests of the United States and all the developed countries who are members of the WTO. Accordingly, this Member recommends the following editorial from the Wednesday, September 15, 1999, Journal of Commerce which comments on the Clinton-Jiang meeting and makes a strong case for China and Taiwan's accession to the WTO. [From the Journal of Commerce, September 15, 1999] Clinton and Jiang Meet The rhetoric was typically overblown, but the idea that Sino-American relations are moving back to what passes for normal is a cause for some relief. A minisummit between Presidents Clinton and Jiang ``opened up a new chapter for Sino-U.S. relations,'' enthused one high-ranking U.S. official after their private session during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum gathering in New Zealand last weekend. ``The summit is significant,'' proclaimed Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who had her own session with Chinese Vice Premier (and former foreign minister) Qian Qichen along with Samuel Berger, Clinton's national security adviser. Relations between the United States and China are important, both for trade and economic reasons and for military and strategic ones. They go through regular if unhelpfully exaggerated turmoil over such things as Taiwan, intellectual property and market access and were badly bruised by the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Chinese outrage was fully understandable and its inherent suspicion of ``mistakes'' fueled an age-old xenophobia. Nobody benefits from that kind of inward-focused China. Many of the strains in Sino-American relations arise from the sort of everyday differences that a more mature and confident China would brush off (but keep around as a bargaining chip at some future time, as all powers do). For a country that claims the pioneering role in the art of diplomacy thousands of years ago, its mandarins often seem strangely given to flying off the handle. In one of the more important unresolved issues--China's membership in the World Trade Organization--both sides are at fault. The Clinton administration muffed a great opportunity during the April visit to the United States of Premier Zhu Rongji, who brought a surprisingly lengthy list of concessions and agreements designed to break the logjam. He was justifiably affronted by the rebuff. Similarly, China did itself no good by sulking for months after the Belgrade bombing and then playing coy, suggesting that while it would be nice to join the club China could muddle through perfectly well on the outside. China patently needs the WTO, and the United States, European Union and the rest of the trading world need it as a member. The talks have dragged on for 13 years. Foreign investment, the spur to China's remarkable economic growth in recent years, is declining. This is partly due to the economic typhoon that swept Asia the past two years, but also partly due to China's failure to cut red tape sufficiently and to corral provincial and even municipal bureaucracies fond of making their own rules. Investors have plenty of good places to go and will go where they feel most welcome. China has cut its tariff levels more deeply and widely than any other big trading country, by as much as 50% in some areas; the terms it offered were more generous than those of many existing WTO members, such as India. Beijing still dawdles for spurious reasons on opening financial services fully--especially insurance--but must be given credit for what it has done. The best way to get closer adherence to global rules is to invite China into the game. The EU, previously also firm in demanding more concessions before entry, long ago accepted that enough was in place that the nitpicking should stop. Beyond the immediate issue lies that of Taiwan. By common if misguided agreement, the dynamic little island won't be allowed into the WTO until China gains entry. Never mind that Taiwan has gone well beyond China and many other countries in tidying up its trade behavior. Such is realpolitik, but Taiwan deservedly gets a lot of good press. When Taiwan President Lee Ten-hui spoke of wanting relations between the island and the mainland on a state-to- state basis, he may have been injudicious and he must have known that Beijing would yelp. But the truth is that Taiwan is the world's 14th-largest trading nation, has its third- largest hard currency reserves and few people outside China swallow Beijing's fiction that Taiwan is a wayward province subject for eternity to the risk of Chinese armed intervention. The think tanks and professors are free to debate the nuances of such things in their ivory towers for as long as it amuses them. The real world needs China and Taiwan in the WTO now. Clinton knows it, and he should make it happen.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support, of course, of H.J. Res. 54. I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the committee, but especially to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) for expediting this legislation as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). This Member is pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation which was introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner). I have heard about her long experience with this legislation, beginning as a State senator. The land affected is exclusively in the congressional district of the gentlewoman and this Member. I appreciate the kind of cooperation and good spirit and reliability and good humor and everything else about the gentlewoman in moving ahead with this problem. And I look forward to cooperating with her on the improvement of the Rulo Bridge, as a matter of fact, between our districts. House Joint Resolution 54 will provide, as the chairman indicated, approval of the land compact which was previously approved by the State legislatures of Missouri and Nebraska. The only exception, which will be on the other side of the river, will be McKissick's Island, which, as the gentlewoman has mentioned, has already been spoken to by the U.S. Supreme Court. I think this is likely to be the last time that this issue needs to come before the Congress because of the stabilization and the channels work that has been completed by the Corps of Engineers. The problems necessitating this compact have been around for a long time. As observed by Lewis and Clark, they saw how reckless and rambunctious the Missouri River was in moving around its channel during the spring rise and the winter flood season as it broke into spring. I would think that there is a sense of urgency because of the confusion regarding taxation of farmland into the disputed areas. In some cases, farmers and other landowners are receiving tax notices from both States. With the agriculture community facing such times, the last thing a farmer needs is to pay taxes twice or to be charged, at least, twice. This summer I held a town hall meeting in Fall City, Nebraska, one of the counties on the Missouri River border. And the superintendent of schools of the Fall City Public School District came to me and objected to the legislation. Indeed, in this land swap arrangement, some political subdivisions, some school districts, some counties, some other types of political subdivisions will be winners in terms of valuation, real estate added or subtracted, and some are losers. According to the superintendent, Fall City is a loser. But it is an issue which the Nebraska legislature has concentrated their attention and finally taken action, in concert with similar action that had taken place over in Jefferson City. I would say to this distinguished superintendent of schools that he needs to go to his State senator, possibly to Senator Wehrbein, the sponsor of the legislation, State Senator Wehrbein, and seek legislative redress if in fact the Fall City public schools is a substantial loser in terms of valuation for that district. I believe the resolution is there. The Nebraska legislature spoke unequivocally on this issue, and it is our responsibility, I think, to discharge the remaining constitutional requirements. The people of Nebraska and Missouri will have occasional disagreements about important matters, such as football and baseball, and they will be playing that out in a stadium this week in Columbia. But with enactment of H.J. Res. 54, at long last, at least we are going to have solved the boundary dispute to the satisfaction of both State governments. Again, I thank the chairman for expediting legislation. I thank my distinguished colleague for her crucial role in the Missouri legislature and here in the House. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 54. The center of the Missouri River formed the original boundary between Nebraska and Missouri. However, the boundary disputes originated from the shifting Missouri River which cut new channels and created avulsions. This natural process was greatly halted when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began efforts to stabilize the river in the 1930s. Since then, the river has generally maintained its current channel. The problems necessitating this compact have been around for decades and it is now time to settle this troublesome matter. This Member also believe there is a renewed sense of urgency because of the confusion regarding the taxation of farmland in the disputed areas. In some cases, farmers are receiving tax notices from both Nebraska and Missouri. With the agricultural community facing such difficult economic times, the last thing a farmer needs is to pay taxes twice on the same land. In addition to taxation concerns, there are also jurisdictional problems related to law enforcement and the delivery of services. It is currently possible, for example, that because of jurisdictional uncertainties, an individual could escape punishment if a crime is committed in the disputed areas. Clearly, these are serious problems that would be resolved by this legislation. In certain cases, costly litigation is needed to determine the true and correct boundary line. In some instances, a Missouri court may determine that the land should be located in Missouri, while a Nebraska court will find that the same land belongs to Nebraska. It is in the best interests of both states, as well as those landowners affected by this uncertainty, to have these disputes handled in a formal manner which makes sense. The compact is intended to do just that.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. First of all, there is nothing negative about the word ``foreigner'' as used here, and I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey that I have used the term ``permanent resident alien'' frequently in my comments. I would also say the constitutionality of this matter has not been ruled on by the courts; and I think there is at least that many law professors that would say that this kind of statutory limitation which we would act upon here would be perfectly constitutional. This amendment goes to our basic sovereignty, the ability to rule ourselves, to protect our basic rights. And I will also ask do my colleagues remember on the campaign contribution cards that colleagues and I and others have to fill out in our campaigns, it asks occupation? This amendment does not discriminate against the minorities as alleged in a Dear Colleague letter. All we have to do is have two blanks on a contribution card which asks the following: Are you a U.S. citizen? Are you a U.S. national? Then the burden of enforcement falls upon the complaint process against the campaign under the FEC. This amendment constitutes a perfectly reasonable approach. I urge my colleagues to reserve the right to affect our elections to U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the foreign contributions prohibition amendment that this Member is offering along with the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) will prohibit foreign individual campaign contributions. It will, in other words, permit them for U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals. This legislation essentially was passed by the House on two occasions in the previous Congress, once as a separate bill, H.R. 34, and again, in precisely the same form as offered today, as an amendment to the Shays-Meehan bill in the last Congress by a recorded vote. This Member reintroduced this legislation because the situation remains the same. Many Americans believe that it is already illegal for foreigners to make Federal campaign contributions. What happened allegedly in the last presidential campaign related to contributions from supposedly resident foreign aliens raised this subject. The problem for Americans who believe that campaign contributions from foreign contributers is already illegal is that they are both right and wrong about our current Federal election laws. The fact of the matter is that under our current Federal election laws, an individual does not have to be a U.S. citizen to make campaign contributions to Federal candidates. He or she does not even have to be a U.S. national. Under our current Federal election laws, a person can make a campaign contribution to candidates running for Federal office if that individual is a permanent legal resident alien and is, in fact, residing in the United States. This is not only an improper provision, in my judgment, it is not only what this Member would call a loophole in American law, it creates such huge enforcement problems that there really is no effective way to detect and stop contributions from foreigners who are not resident aliens by status or who do not in fact reside in the United States. This Member believes that this situation is wrong, where foreigners affect our elections, he believes that most Americans would agree that it is wrong, and he believes that this is a problem begging for correction. To this Member it is a very simple proposition. If an individual wants to be fully involved in the American political process, then he or she must become a citizen of the United States or be a U.S. national. If that person does not make the full commitment to this country by becoming a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national, then he or she should not have the right to participate in our political system by making a campaign contribution and affecting the lives of American citizens.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a substitute amendment be made in order to deal with the pagination and line problem created by a change in pagination by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has initially found this to be an appropriate problem to solve. He has the solution. I think this should be unanimously supported, and I appreciate his representation of U.S. nationals.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, the violence and bloodshed in recent days in East Timor has shocked the world. Pro-Indonesia thugs have run rampant in this tiny former Portuguese colony, killing pro-independence Timorese. The political leadership in Jakarta totally failed in its guarantee of safety to the local Timorese populace, and has become the source of shame both for the government and the Indonesian military. It is clear that an international peacekeeping force will be necessary to restore order in East Timor. As the Omaha World Herald correctly noted in a September 14, 1999, editorial entitled ``First, Stop the Killing,'' this bloody repression must be stopped. ``This is too early to talk about resolving the sides' differences. For now it is enough simply to separate them and try to calm the situation.'' Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to this colleagues the excellent editorial in the Omaha World Herald. First, Stop the Killing Few Americans take any joy in the prospect of sending peacekeeping troops into the violence and intrigues of East Timor. But the situation is relieved greatly by the announcement that Indonesian President B.J. Habibie now welcomes them. International pressure was mounting to somehow stop the bloodletting. Having to subdue both pro-Indonesian militias and troops, while at the same time strong-arming the legitimate Indonesian government, would have been a daunting prospect. Now Habibie has conceded the obvious--his defense forces can't control the situation--and so relief may be in sight within a few days. Australia, which is literally in the neighborhood, expects to send a force of up to 7,000 on short-notice deployment. This is appropriate, given the geography and the fact that Australia has been among the staunchest advocates of intervention. It will be at least as appropriate when other nations of Asian ethnicity in that part of the world can supplement Australia's effort. So far, at least, this is a regional problem in need of regional solutions. For these reasons, it also is right for the United States basically to stay out--at least for the short term, and possibly for the long. U.S. armed forces taking part are likely to number in the hundreds. Their role would be in support functions--what National Security Adviser Sandy Berger characterized as ``airlift to bring forces to the region, logistical and transportation capabilities, communications capabilities.'' The boiling over of East Timor can't be justified, but in hindsight the degree to which it caught the international community napping is a little surprising. Indonesia, which sprawls over 17,000 islands and encompasses hundreds of ethnicities and languages, is a nation that for half a century has been held together by smoke, mirrors and the threat of just what is happening now; violent repression. East Timor's U.N.-sponsored vote for independence was perceived by the militias and the military as a foretaste of similar efforts in other independence-minded regions, of which there are several. And since by the military's and militia's perception, they have only one tool with which to ``repair'' the situation, that's the tool they're using. The whole world is watching the rivers of blood that are the result. It cries out to be stopped. This is too early to talk about resolving the sides' differences. For now it is enough simply to separate them and try to calm the situation. Down the road, better solutions are needed--in part for humanitarian reasons, but also for practical ones. Indonesia is flung across a vast reach of water linking the Pacific and Indian oceans, and through this maze of islands threads a major oil-shipping lane. The effects of disrupting that could ripple through economies worldwide. For now, though, the most urgent need has just one focus: Stop the killing. It's heartening to see events there aimed toward that end.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member rises to advise his colleagues that he intends to introduce a resolution this afternoon regarding the institution in East Timor. Among its provisions, this resolution notes the abject failure of the government of Indonesia to fulfill its responsibility to guarantee the safety and security of the people of East Timor and calls on the government of Indonesia to terminate the current violence in East Timor. The resolution also expresses the support of the House for a United Nations Security Council-endorsed multinational force for East Timor which, under duress, President Habibie has agreed to permit. Australia is willing to lead this force and should be commended and supported. We need to get that force into East Timor now. The United Nations surely knew that some degree of violence would follow the announcement of the election results. It is a tragedy they were so unprepared for the rampage of the militia forces. Given the human tragedy that has been unfolding in East Timor and the pressing need for the House to speak out for action against the violence and mayhem there, it is the intention of this Member to move this East Timor resolution through the Committee on International Relations and bring it to the House floor as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, any colleagues who would like to be original cosponsors of this resolution should contact the subcommittee at 67825 this afternoon.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), a member of the committee.

Mr. BEREUTER

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is far afield from my committee assignments; but I think I, like every Member of the House, must focus on this issue because it is of fundamental importance to the American political system. The way that we conduct our affairs here, what we do and what we do not do, is so often related to campaign finance issues. More importantly, I think, much beyond that is the fact that the citizens' perception of the relationship between campaign finance and the way their elected representatives vote and perform is very negative. They have a view that the current campaign finance system causes us to fail to act in their interest. That is causing a corrosive effect upon our system. We need to deal with it. Both parties know that we need to have campaign finance reform. Neither, however, is willing to give up the particular special advantages that that party has in the current system or process. Now, back in the last Congress in which I served in the minority, we had, I believe, a very extensive, thorough task force effort to begin to focus on what changes were needed in campaign finance reform. It is the basis of much of the legislation that I have introduced or cosponsored over the years. Our failure to reduce the disproportionate impact of money in elective politics is, my friends, having a corrosive effect upon the American political process. It contributes to suspicion and skepticism among our citizens. Furthermore, there is more than enough blame to go around for both parties. I would like to focus just on two elements here. First, I would say, with respect to the Shays-Meehan bill, I think that, unfortunately, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is right that some aspects of that legislation are indeed unconstitutional. But what disappoints me about our two colleagues who have introduced this legislation is that they have ignored the action of the House twice now on the subject of campaign contributions from noncitizens and from people that are not U.S. nationals. This House has expressed itself, saying that the elections, specifically the campaign contributions process leading up to it, should be reserved for citizens and U.S. nationals, like those from American Samoa for example. When these two distinguished colleagues said they made minor adjustments in the legislation they reintroduced in this Congress, they specifically did not do what the House had instructed them to do by a wide majority vote: restrict contributions to Federal campaigns to U.S. citizens and U.S. voters. And we know that the American people expect that prohibition is or should be law. This is a loophole that became very apparent in the course of the last presidential campaign, and we have a responsibility to deal with that issue. The charges against the Bereuter-Wicker amendment are not true. I will show in the course of the debates on the Wicker-Bereuter amendment that, in fact, the arguments against it are not valid, or are not procedurally correct. I also want to say, as a representative from a State that has a low population, that citizens of our State are very disturbed about the fact that in recent elections in our State more than half of the money to elect a U.S. senator has come from outside the State. Indeed, in one of our races, over half the money came in from the State of California. In a recent open-seat election in the State of South Dakota, the most expensive Senate race per capita in history was from that constituency. Indeed the greatest proportion of money came in from other states. This is resented by the citizens of that state. It is not a proper approach. We need to limit the majority of the amount of money coming into House races and Senate races to contributions from citizens of those congressional districts and the respective states. I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter-Wicker amendment and the Calvert amendment.